vol. 53 (1988), no. 4

aclu news

NON PROFIT

ORGANIZATION

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

Permit No, 4424

San Francisco, CA

Volume LIlI

July/August 1988

No. 4

Hospital Workers Protest

English-Only Rule

ospital workers at the University of

Hien (San Francisco), repres-

ented by the ACLU-NC and the

Mexican American Legal Defense and Edu-

cational Fund (MALDEF), announced at a

_ June 29 press conference that they had filed

discrimination complaints against the uni-

_ versity in protest against an "English-only"

rule imposed on employees.

The complaints, discrimination "charges"

filed with the U.S. Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission by ten university

workers and their union (AFSCME Council

10), seek to abolish an English-only work-

place rule imposed by UCSF in May of 1987.

The personnel rule, posted prominently in

several workplace reas, prohibits

employees from speaking a language other

than English on the job, except during lunch

breaks or when acting as translators. The

university has used the rule to issue written

and oral reprimands against employees who

have spoken to each other in Spanish and

Tagalog.

Ed Chen, ACLU staff attorney, asserted

that English-only rules in the workplace are

illegal. "These rules are aimed specifically at

bilingual workers and as such constitute

national origin discrimination forbidden by

the civil rights laws," Chen noted.

Rene Zamora-Baca, a bilingual worker

Yolanda Cortez, a diet technician and AFSCME shop steward at UCSF, announces

discrimination charges against the hospital for its English-only rule). MALDEF

attorney Francisco Garcia (left) and the ACLU-NC are representing the workers.

who delivers meals to patients' rooms, also

spoke at the press conference.

Zamora-Baca was orally informed by

supervisors of the English-only rule and

subsequently received a written reminder

not to speak Spanish on the job. Zamora-

Baca said "I didn't think it was right to be

afraid to speak Spanish." Thereafter, he was

stopped in a hallway by a housekeeper, an

older woman who speaks poor English, who

Drug Tests Halted, Started Again

( : harging an East Bay publishing

firm with using "Draconian mea-

sures," Alameda County Superior

Court Judge Michael E. Ballachey on June

8 enjoined a company policy requiring job

applicants to take drug tests as a condition

of employment. Less than three weeks later,

however, the state Court of Appeal stayed

the injunction.

The decision came in Wilkinson v. Times

Mirror Books, the first lawsuit to success-

fully challenge a mandatory drug testing

program for job applicants by a private

employer. Although Judge Ballachey

granted the plaintiffs an injunction, in a 2-1

decision the state appeal court ruled that

while the appeal is pending, a period which

could last anywhere from nine months to

over a year, testing may be continued.

"Tm very disappointed in the stay, partic-

ularly given the fact that there was no real

urgency in drug testing, given the nature of

the industry involved," commented ACLU-

NC staff attorney Ed Chen.

In his ruling, Judge Ballachey stated that

the drug testing program "runs afoul of the

Constitution . . . and it appears to be an

infringement of basic constitutional rights."

The lawsuit was jointly filed by the

ACLU-NC and the Employment Law Cen-

ter in March on behalf of Kathleen Wilkin-

son, Rina Hirai and Francesca Bannerman,

all of whom applied for jobs at the legal

publishing firm of Matthew Bender and Com-

pany, a subsidiary of Times Mirror

Corporation.

The publishing company instituted a pol-

icy of across-the-board mandatory drug and

alcohol testing of all job applicants in April

1987.

Wilkinson first applied for a job as copy

editor trainee in January 1987. In Sep-

tember, after several interviews, she was told

that she would be hired for the job on the

condition that she take the drug test.

"I was shocked," recalled Wilkinson, "I

couldn't believe they were asking for a drug

test. It's a privacy issue," she said.

Hirai, an attorney, who applied for a job

as a legal writer, was told her application

had to be withdrawn because she refused to

sign a statement that she would submit to a

drug test.

A third applicant, attorney Francesca

Bannerman, joined the suit after she, too,

was required to take a urine test for drugs

before being employed as a legal writer by

the firm.

Co-operating attorney Christina Hall of

Hall and Fishman who is litigating the case

with ACLU-NC staff attorneys Chen and

Matthew Coles, and John True of the

Employment Law Center, said, "Urinalysis

testing compromises fundamental privacy

interests and represents a disturbing acceler-

ation in the use of technology to encroach

upon the sanctity of the right to privacy."

Chen was particularly pleased with Balla-

chey's recognition of the overreaching

aspects of the mandatory drug testing pro-

gram. "The judge found that drug tests,

while degrading and invasive of privacy, do

not identify applicants who present a sub-

stantial risk of being a poor employee, nor

do they deter drug use since sophisticated

drug users can easily beat the tests." Chen

said.

Widespread testing

There is widespread use of mandatory

drug testing for job applicants-of compan-

continued on p. 2

engaged him in a brief Spanish conversa-

tion. A supervisor overheard the conversa-

tion and reprimanded Zamora-Baca.

"The rule is bad because it discriminates

against minorities, especially older people

who do not speak English well, and because

there's no good reason to forbid people to

speak their native tongue if they are not

talking to supervisors or the public," said

Zamora-Baca. He also opposes the rule

because it is applied unequally and "used as

a club by supervisors to keep people in line."

Racial animosity

Yolanda Cortez, a UCSF diet technician

and a union steward for AFSCME, noted

that the English-only rule "places enormous

stress on university employees, heightens

racial animosity in the workplace, and

creates an environment of oppression and

resentment where supervisors are encour-

aged to engage in arbitrary and discrimina-

tory actions."

After observing an English-only notice

posted on a kitchen bulletin board, Cortez'

complained to the university's Labor Rela-

tions Department. She was told that the -

university "stood firmly behind the rule" in

spite of the objections of bilingual workers

and nothwithstanding a recent federal court

decision invalidating such rules.

In January of this year, the Ninth Circuit

' Court of Appeals held that a Los Angeles-

area municipal court's English-only rule is a

violation of Title VII, the federal antidis-

crimination law. The ruling in Gutierrez v.

Municipal Court, the first California deci-

sion to address the validity of English-only

rules, noted that "such rules can create an

atmosphere of inferiority, isolation and

intimidation." Significantly, the court relied

on EEOC guidelines, in force since 1980,

that bar English-only rules unless justified

by a "business necessity."

"The university's English-only rule is

identical to the one invalidated in the Gutier-

rez case, and there can be no conceivable

justification for its continued use," said

MALDEF attorney Francisco Garcia.

"Today we send a signal to the university and

all employers who discriminate on the basis _.

of English`only rules that such rules are

illegal and will no longer be tolerated in our

multi-cultural society," added Garcia.

Garcia also explained that through a

"Language Rights Campaign," the ACLU

and MALDEF seek to counter through

public education misguided attempts to

enact English-only legislation and to pro-

tect, through litigation if necessary, the

rights of language minority persons victim-

ized by English-only rules, regulations and

laws.

aclu news

2 july/august 1988

AIDS Initiative

Marc Geller / Sentinel

Health professionals announce their opposition to the Dannemeyer AIDS initiative at

, an ACLU press conference. Left to right: California Medical Association President Dr.

Laurens White, S.F. Public Health Department chief Dr. David Werdegar, ACLU-NC

attorney Matthew Coles and Helen Miramontes of the California Nurses Association.

"LaRouchein |

Sheep's Clothing"

he California Medical Association,

Ts president Dr. Laurens White, the

California Nurses Association and

Dr. David" Werdegar, Director of the San

Francisco Department of Public Health,

filed a suit on July 6 to keep Congressman

William Dannemeyer's AIDS initiative off

the November ballot.

Though promoted as a public health mea-

sure, the initiative would actually impede

efforts to stop the spread of AIDS. The

proposed initiative would forbid anonymous

testing, and require doctors to report the

name of anyone "believed" to be infected

with the virus which causes AIDS to local

health officers. Doctors who failed to report

would be guilty of a crime and subject to a

$250 penalty for each report.

The initiative would also require that all

HIV test results be reported to health offic-

ers, including those obtained during most

research studies; require that all persons

"believed" to be infected turn in the names -

and addresses of all sexual partners (from an

unspecified period of time) within seven

days or face criminal prosecution; eliminate

current laws which prohibit employers and

insurers from requiring HIV antibody tests;

eliminate the present requirement of written

consent for HIV tests; require that persons

charged with certain crimes, including

assault, be tested; and increase prison sen-

tences for HIV positive people convicted of

certain crimes, again including assault.

The lawsuit was filed by ACLU-NC Staff

attorney Matthew Coles, Benjamin Schatz

of National Gay Rights Advocates, ACLU-

NC cooperating attorneys George Cum-

ming and David Furbush of Brobeck,

Phleger and Harrison, and Roberta Achten-

berg of the Lesbian Rights Project. The suit

charges. that the petitions Dannemeyer used

to obtain signatures for the initative mislead-

ingly failed to tell voters that the proposed

law would ban anonymous testing for

AIDS.

Single Subject Rule

The lawsuit also. claims that by including

provisions on insurance, protective clothing,

Gift from Gay Rights Chapter

The Gay Rights Chapter has given

~ $11,475 to underwrite an ACLU-NC AIDS

and Gay Rights Legislative Project con-

ducted by staff counsel Matthew Coles.

The gift enables Coles to devote one-

fourth of his time to working on AIDS and

gay rights legislation. Coles is a key strategist

against repressive AIDS legislation and

initiatives. He has been called in to head off

repressive measures in other Western states,

and is the architect of gay rights and domes-

tic partnership ordinances in California and

around the nation.

In making the gift, Gay Rights Chapter

Chairperson Douglas Warner said, "We

believe that Matt's work in this area is vital.

At a time when the courts are growing

increasingly conservative, we must concen-

trate some of our resources on preventing

bad legislation and enacting affirmative

measures to safeguard rights for lesbians,

gay men and people at risk of contracting

AIDS."

The gift comes from funds from a bequest -

made by Norman Sansom, a long-time

ACLU and Gay Rights Chapter member

who died in 1985.

ACLU-NC Board Chairperson Nancy

Pemberton said, "We are delighted by the

generosity of the chapter's gift because it

makes possible the expansion of our work

on issues we consider of monumental impor-

tance. We are deeply committed to ending

discrimination against lesbians and gay

men, and to combatting the threats to civil

rights and civil liberties surrounding the

AIDS crisis."

testing persons charged with assault, and

longer sentences for HIV positive people

convicted of assault, the initiative violates

the "single subject" requirement of the state

Constitution.

If the initiative were successful in

November, the all-important one-to-one

counseling provided at all anonymous test-

ing sites would be eliminated. If people were

to stay away from the anonymous test sites

and from private physicians for fear of the

reporting requirements, Dr. Werdegar

explained, "the spread of the virus would

increase dramatically."

"Forced testing and reporting," stated

Helen Miramontes, immediate past presi-

dent of the California Nurses Association,

"is impractical, unnecessary and lacks any

public health rationale." She instead advo-

cates "massive on-going education of all

segments of our society."

Dr. White asserted that mandatory

reporting would "drive people away from

education," the most effective tool in halting

the spread of the epidemic.

The provisions on testing criminal defend-

ants and sentencing, the lawsuit charges, are

unrelated to public health. "There is no way

AIDS could be transmitted by assault with a

firearm," said Coles. "The only connection

between AIDS and this part of the initiative

is that people who have the virus which

causes it get special punishment. This isn't

public health, it's public retribution."

According to NGRA attorney Benjamin

Schatz, "The Dannemeyer AIDS initiative

is a poorly drafted and mean spirited

attempt to exploit the AIDS crisis for polit-

ical gain. If it is placed into law, the taxpay-

ers will be forced to pay billions of dollars for

repressive measures which will actually

increase the spread of AIDS. No one," he

said "should be fooled by a LaRouche in

sheep's clothing." _

Gay Rights Chapter

Membership

If you are a member of the Gay

Rights Chapter, please check to see

that the 3-letter code "CNG" is printed

above your name on the ACLU News

mailing label. If not, please notify

ACLU-NC Membership Department

to double check that you are listed

as a Gay Rights member. We want

to make sure that you receive all the

Chapter notices and_ special

announcements.

lf you are an ACLU member in

Northern California and would like to

join the Gay Rights Chapter, call or

write the ACLU Membership Depart-

ment at (415) 621-2493, 1663

Mission Street, San Francisco,

94103. Please mention your mem-

bership number located on the

newsletter mailing label.

Drug Tests

continued from p. 1

ies that use drug testing, over 90% of them

conduct pre-employment drug tests.

The judge, noting the need for drug con-

trol because "it is undermining the very

fabric of our society," said that Matthew

Bender's program "appears to be a panicky

reaction to the problem . . . and companies

should not violate the privacy of

individuals."

Concerned with the means by which the

drug problem is dealt with, the judge called

the views about social control held by Dr.

Robert Dupont, one of Matthew Bender's

expert witnesses, "frightening" and reminis-

cent of pre-World War II Germany. Dupont

advocates random drug testing of all motor-

ists, high school students and children

within the family.

The ACLU has strongly opposed drug

testing as a violation of constitutional pri-

vacy guarantees. The ACLU-NC has chal-

lenged drug testing of refinery workers,

student athletes, federal railway workers and

employees of the Veterans Administration.

Nationally, the ACLU has numerous drug

test challenges pending in the courts.

New ACLU-NC

Board Members

In order to fill the vacancies created by the

resignations of ACLU-NC Board members

Francisco Lobaco, Steven Owyang and

Mary Lou Breslin, the Board of Directors

has appointed the following people to the

Board:

Leigh-Ann Miyasato is an attorney with |

the firm of Erickson, Beasley and Hewitt. A

specialist in employment law, Miyasato is

also active in the Asian American Bar Asso-

ciation. She was one of the attorneys on the

successful Korematsu case which, in 1983,

overturned the conviction of Fred Kore-

matsu for refusing to obey the internment

order which forced 120,000 Japanese Amer-

icans into concentration camps during

World War II.

Joanne Lewis serves as a Vice-Chancellor

at the University of California (San Fran-

cisco). She is a member of the Black Caucus

at UCSF and is currently president of Advo-

cates for Women.

David Averbuck is an attorney who spe-

cializes in disability rights. Currently in pri-

vate practice in Oakland, Averbuck taught

at U.C. Berkeley's School of Social Welfare

from 1973-87 specializing in law and the

disabled, children's rights and age discrimi-

nation. He also served as an Assistant Dean

at Boalt Hall School of Law and as an

attorney with the United Farm Workers.

Lewis is filling an interim vacancy that

expires in July 1988 and therefore is also

running in the current Board of Directors

Elections. Averbuck is filling a term which

expires in July 1989, and Miyasato a term

which expires in July 1990.

Elaine Elinson, Editor

aclu news

8 issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in January-February, June-July,

August-September and November-December

Published by the American Civil I.iberties Union of Northern California

Nancy Pemberton, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director

| 1663 Mission St., 4th floor, San Francisco, California 94103. (415) 621-2488

Membership $20 and up, of which 50 cents is for a subscription to the aclu news

and SO cents is for the national ACLU-bi-monthly publication, Civil Liberties.

Marcia Gallo, Chapter Page

: aciu news

july/august 1988 3

Concord Activists

Protest "Pain Holds"

harging that the Contra Costa She-

e _riffs Department "has resorted to

the use of `pain holds' that inflict

excessive, unnecessary force" on peaceful

protestors at the Concord Naval Weapons

Station, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on May 10

in U.S. District Court on behalf of members

of Nuremberg Actions.

The demonstrators, at least two of whom

had limbs broken by the officers, are being

.represented by ACLU-NC cooperating

attorney Robert Mittelstaedt of Pillsbury,

Madison and Sutro and ACLU-NC staff

attorney Ed Chen.

"Using pain holds and breaking wrists

and arms of peaceful demonstrators is exces-

sive and unnecessary force-and violates the

U.S. and California Constitutions," said

Mittelstaedt.

Nuremberg Actions began a vigil at the

Concord Naval Weapons Station in June

1987 to protest the shipment of weapons by

the U.S. government to the contras in Nica-

ragua, to the governments of El Salvador

and Guatemala and other countries in Cen-

tral America.

The area surrounding the Weapons Sta-

tion is public property and has been the site

of many anti-war protests over the years.

Attorney Chen explained, "The members

of Nuremberg Actions are dedicated to the

peaceful, non-violent exercise of their First

Amendment rights."

Beginning September 1, 1987, the protes-

tors, having first alerted the Weapons Sta-

tion, the Marines and the Sheriff's

Department, began protesting the shipment

of arms to Central America by praying,

fasting, sitting, standing or kneeling on or

near the train tracks outside the main gate.

On that date, veteran Brian Willson (who is

not a party to this lawsuit) was run over by

a munitions train and lost both legs.

According to plaintiff David Hartsough,

who had his wrist broken by a Sheriff's pain

hold, "Since September 1, we have had a 24-

hour a day presence and nonviolently block-

aded every munitions train at the Weapons

Station.

"We plan to continue our nonviolent

actions at Concord and ask our government

to uphold international law, stop inflicting

violence and death on the people of Central

America, and stop its intimidation of peace-

ful protestors in this country," Hartsough

added.

Chuck Goodmacher/ Peace Center

At the train tracks used

for sending arms to Central

America, a Concord sherriff

arrested protestor David Hartsough

with a painhold, breaking his arm.

Since October, 1987 officers have used

pain holds on the demonstrators. Pain holds

(also known as "control holds") consist of the

twisting of arms, fingers, ears or other por-

tions of the body or use of pressure on the

arteries. They are intended to and do pro-

duce severe pain the victim, often resulting

in bruises, torn ligaments, severe swelling

and broken bones. |

Peace Navy Can Sail During

Fleet Week

he Bay Area Peace Navy will be free

to fill San Francisco's Aquatic Park

with peace songs and banners during

"Fleet Week" because of a May ruling by

U.S. District Judge Alfonso Zirpoli in a

lawsuit brought by the ACLU-NC.

The Peace Navy came to the ACLU-NC

seeking to challenge restrictions placed on

their activity by the U.S. Navy, which vio-

lated the peace activists' First Amendment

rights.

In 1986, the Coast Guard imposed a

security zone on the Peace Navy's Fleet

Week demonstration which kept the Peace

Navy's boats 75 yards away from the pier at

_ Aquatic Park. At this distance the Peace

Navy's songs were inaudible and their pro-

test signs were unreadable to viewers. The

Navy attempted to impose the same string-

ent restrictions on the Peace Navy in 1987.

But in October 1987, after hearing argu-

ments from ACLU-NC cooperating attor-

ney James Kaller and ACLU-NC staff

attorney Matthew Coles, Judge Zirpoli

issued a Temporary Restraining Order

(TRO) stating that the Coast Guard's 75-

yard security zone was unconstitutional.

Judge Zirpoli's. May ruling replaces the TRO

with a permanent injunction.

Based in Berkeley, the Peace Navy is a

flotilla comprised of nearly 100 sailboats,

powerboats, yachts, canoes, kayaks and

dinghies. The group has been holding

marine demonstrations during Fleet Week,

the nation's largest annual naval event, since

1984.

As Navy warships pass a reviewing stand

on Aquatic Park's pier in their procession

which opens Fleet Week, the Peace Navy

armada sails past the pier displaying

banners and posters opposing militarism

and calling for peace.

"Our objective," says Peace Navy co-

coordinator and plaintiff Robert Heifitz, "is

to promote an ecologically beneficial, peace-

time revitalization of the Bay for recreation,

commerce and industry-not to promote

false patriotism at home and illegal covert

adventures abroad."

The Coast Guard began imposing the 75-

yard restriction, which extended in all direc-

tions around the pier, in 1986. Navy officials

claimed that they had to "safeguard public

officials from subversive acts... ." Judge

Zirpoli's TRO, issued on the eve of the 1987

Fleet Week procession, decreased the secur-

ity zone to 50 yards for the Peace Navy's

parade and 25 yards for its performance

boat.

Judge Zirpoli asserted, "There has been

no tangible threat of terrorist attack during

the `Fleet Week' ceremonies in the past. The

Peace Navy's counter-demonstrations did

not pose any threat of violence or other

terrorist activity in 1984, 1985, 1986 or 1987.

There is no evidence that the Peace Navy will

pose such a threat in the future." With the

injunction, Judge Zirpoli changed the zone

to 25 yards for all Peace Navy boats.

The ruling allows for possible future mod-

ifications which may be imposed because of

a "tangible threat to security," weather con-

ditions,, or alternations in.the Fleet Week

program. Safety zones placed around naval

ships and during the Blue Angels air show

were excepted from the new zone

requirements.

Said ACLU staff attorney Matthew

Coles, "It's easy to look at this as a small

case. But we were very worried about the

tendency of the U.S. government to use

terrorism as a blanket excuse for cutting

back on First Amendment rights, and we

are very glad it hasn't worked!"

- Suzanne Samuel

On November 10, 1987 Hartsough, who

works at the American Friends Service

Committee in San Francisco, was peacefully

demonstrating at the tracks. When asked to

leave, he explained to the officer that he

would stay because if he left people in Cen-

tral America would die.

Sheriff Mock responded by using a pain

hold, saying that this is to "make sure you

leave the tracks next time." The sheriff broke

Hartsough's wrist.

At the same demonstration, another she-

riff arrested David Wylie, an ordained min-

ister with the United Church of Christ.

Using a pain hold, he twisted Reverend

Wylie's arms behind his back. The sheriff's

actions were so severe that he broke Wylie's

elbow.

Reverend Wylie said, "With this lawsuit,

we want to remind people that this little bit

of suffering that we have experienced

directly in no way compares to the massive

violence and suffering that the U.S. govern-

ment has inflicted on the peoples of Central

America and elsewhere throughout the

world." :

Grandmother injured

On November 17, Sheriff Dussel used a

pain hold to arrest Jean Bakewell, an Orinda

artist and a grandmother of four, who was

sitting on the railway tracks. He twisted her

arm with such force that it was bruised and

swollen. She was taken to the hospital and

diagnosed as having severe sprain.

Bakewell says that she is sure she was

"being used as an example that day."

"T have been involved in the peace move-

ment for many years and I have never

received such treatment. It was raining and

it was the first day I sat on the tracks. I was -

literally thrown between two police cars. It

was obvious I was in extreme pain as I was

screaming at the top of my voice," Bakewell

said.

Hartsough added, "I am outraged that the

Sheriffs Department and the Navy have

attempted to intimidate and frighten us into

discontinuing our peaceful, nonviolent

protest.

"There is no excuse in a democratic coun-

try for government representatives to inflict

violence and pain on protestors whose only

crime is that we are asking our government

to uphold intenational law and stop killing

innocent civilians in Central America and

other parts of the world," he said.

The lawsuit, Nuremberg Actions v. Con-

tra Costa, seeks a court ruling that the use of

pain holds on peaceful demonstrators vio-

lates their constitutional rights, especially

when the Sheriff's Department knows that

the demonstrators are nonviolent and pres-

ent no risk of escape. The lawsuit also seeks

compensatory damages for the injuries

inflicted on the demonstrators.

Filing Cabinets

The ACLU-NC is in great need of

filing cabinets to keep our papers in

order. If you have some to offer, we can

pick them up from you if they are in San

Francisco or nearby environs. We

especially need:

4-drawer, legal size (4)

2-drawer, legal size (1)

Please contact Mila deGuzman at

the ACLU-NC office, (415) 621-2493.

aclu news

4 july/august 1988

Who is eligible to vote?

The by-laws of the ACLU of Northern

California call for the at-large Directors of

the Board to be elected by the general

membership. The general membership are

those members in good standing who have

joined or renewed their membership within

the last twelve months.

The label affixed to this issue of the

ACLU News indicates on the top line the

year and month when your membership

has expired.

If you are not eligible to vote, you may

choose to renew your membership, and

thereby resume your membership in good

standing, at the same time you submit your

ballot.

If you share a joint membership, each

individual is entitled to vote separately-

two spaces are provided on the ballot.

- How are candidates nominated to run for

the Board of Directors?

The ACLU-NC by-laws permit two

methods of nomination. Candidates may be

nominated by the current Board of Direc-

tors after consideration of the Nominating

Committee's recommendations. Candidates

may also be nominated by petition bearing

the signatures of at least fifteen ACLU-NC

members in good standing.

Voting Information

- ~BALLOT.

INSTRUCTIONS

Candidates are listed on these pages in

alphabetical order. After marking your bal-

lot, clip it and enclose the ballot and your

address label from this issue of the ACLU

News in an envelope. Your address label

must be included in order to insure voter

eligibility. Address the envelope to:

Elections Committee

ACLU of Northern California

1663 Mission Street, Suite 460

San Francisco, California 94103

If you have a joint membership, you may

use both of the columns provided, and each

of the members may vote separately.

If you wish to insure the confidentiality of

your ballot, insert your ballot in a double

envelope with the special mailing label in the -

outer one. The envelopes will be separated

before the counting of the ballot.

Ballots must be returned to the ACLU

office by noon on August 10, 1988.

There are nine candidates running to fill

nine vacancies on the Board. You may vote

for up to nine candidates.

_ For your consideration, we are publish-

ing brief statements submitted by the candi-

dates for election to the Board of Directors.

Marsha Berzon

I have served as a member of the Board of

Directors of the ACLU-NC since 1985. Dur-

ing that time and before, I have been on the

Legal Committee and on several substantive

committees, including ones addressing

AIDS issues and attorneys fees policies, and

served as a volunteer attorney. :

My particular interests among the many

that the ACLU works on include women's

rights and free speech. In both of these

fields, I have done extensive legal work,

including representing the interests of the

labor movement in the United States

Supreme Court. I find serving the Board of

the ACLU-NC a fascinating and rewarding

experience, and hope to be able to continue

to do so in the future.

Incumbent: Yes

Nominated by: Board of Directors

BALLOT |

Vote for no more than nine candidates. Joint |

members use both columns. Please read

voting instructions before completing ballot.

Marsha Berzon

James Blume

Ann Brick

Richard Grosboll

Lee Halterman

Joanne A. Lewis

Ethel Long-Scott

Alberto Saldamando

_ac GE se Ge GS Ge Ge oe ee ee

James Blume

I have been a member of the ACLU for

over 20 years. During this period, I have

noted with admiration the ACLU's growth

in importance and stature. As a result, it is,

at once, a great honor and a great opportun-

ity to be nominated to serve on the ACLU-

NC Board of Directors.

If elected, I can bring to the Board an

abiding commitment to civil liberties as well

as a wide-range of experience serving non-

profit organizations. As a Board member, I

believe I can utilize my managerial, financial

and budgetary skills to enhance our organi-

zation. I look forward to the opportunity to

more fully serve the ACLU.

Incumbent: No |

Nominated by: Board of Directors

~ Ann Brick

I am honored to be nominated for mem-

bership on the ACLU-NC Board of Direc-

tors. As a high school student in Wyoming in

the early 1960's, I looked to the ACLU as a

symbol of the fight to safeguard civil liber-

ties and civil rights in this country. I know

now that it is far more than just a symbol; it

is a Vital force in preserving those freedoms.

After finishing law school and joining a

law firm, I have had the privilege of working

both as co-counsel and as a cooperating

attorney on ACLU cases. I have also served

on the ACLU's Legal Committee. Member-

ship on the Board of Directors offers an

opportunity to work to strengthen the

ACLU as an organization as well as to

continue working to further the values for

which the ACLU stands. I hope you will give

me the opportunity to do so.

Incumbent: No

Nominated by: Board of Directors

Richard Grosboll

Having enjoyed my tenure on the ACLU-

NC Board, I would like to remain on the

Board for another three years. I am Chair of

the ACLU-NC Field Committee, Chair of

the 1988 Conference Committee, Co-Chair

of the ACLU-NC Pro-Choice Task Force

and serve on the Development Committee.

Previously, I served as Chair of the Bill of

Rights Campaign Committee for three

years. The issues, as well as our fund-raising

needs, continue to be challenging and inter-

esting, and I hope to have more time to work

on both. I have enjoyed and appreciated the

opportunity to work with the ACLU-NC

staff and fellow Board members.

I work for a union-side labor law firm

specializing in the employee benefits area

and am an active volunteer in neighborhood

and environmental issues in San Francisco.

Incumbent: Yes

Nominated by: Board of Directors

Lee Halterman

I am honored to be nominated to serve

another term on the ACLU Northern Cali-

fornia Board of Directors. During my five

years on the Board I have served on the

Legislative Committee, the Executive Com-

mittee, the Development Committee, have

chaired ad-hoc committees on the Inde-

pendence of the Judiciary and the Immigra-

tion Reform and Control Act, and have

-attended the Philadelphia biennial confer-

ence on behalf of the affiliate.

I look forward to continuing to work to

end the death penalty, preserve pro-choice

and sexual freedom victories, protect dem-

onstrators, ethnic minorities and those who

confront government harrassment, and to

expand our views of civil liberties to

embrace enhanced expressions of human

rights as manifested in international legal

documents. I want to work to enhance our

outreach and membership recruitment dur-

ing the coming period, and to ensure the

viability of one of the best programs for

protecting civil liberties that operates in the

nation.

Incumbent: Yes

Nominated by: Board of Directors

Joanne A. Lewis

For the past 20 years I have actively sup-

ported efforts to make the work environ-

ment non-discriminatory, beginning in 1968

as one of the founding members of the

=

1988 ACLU-NC Board of Direc

Douglas R. Young

aclu news

july/august 1988 5

ctors Elections -

University of California, San Francisco

Black Caucus.

During these 20 years I have worked

closely with a variety of organizations and I

appreciate the important role of community

organizations. The ACLU has a strong rep-

utation for quality work. When ACLU

joined you in the battle, your confidence

level increased due to ACLU's unwavering

commitment to individual rights. During

my tenure as Director of the California

Department of Fair Employment and Hous-

ing, the ACLU was a friendly support on

more than one occasion.

It is an honor to serve on the ACLU

Board of Directors. I pledge my support to

the expansion and strengthening of the

ACLU influence in protecting individual

rights.

Incumbent: Yes

Nominated by: Board of Directors

Ethel Long-Scott

My experience in social justice work cov-

ers 17 years, or all of my adult life and some

of my youth. As Co-Director of the Women's

Economic Agenda Project (WEAP), my

responsibilities have focused on the methods

of evaluating family-oriented programs and

policies and examining their impact on fam-

ily stability. As a state-wide organization,

WEAP has had the opportunity to be a

significant part of many other organizations

who have similar concerns and seek to red-

ress the impact of gender-specific, insensi-

tive public policy. Besides directing the

Project, I serve on national boards (Child

Care Employee Project, Equal Rights Con-

gress, and National Center for Policy Alter-

natives) and also serve on several statewide

boards.

For the past 3 years I have served as the

Co-Convenor of The Women, Family and

Work Coalition which was responsible for

spearheading a non-partisan legislative

package which speaks directly to the needs

of women, children, elderly, disabled, unem-

ployed and underemployed Californians.

Through our efforts, we have had the Gover-

nor sign 25 bills into law.

I serve as an Executive Committee

member of Black Women Organized for

Political Action, an Advisory Board

member of the non-profit organization

Rural Women Resource, Inc., and board

member of New Ways to Work.

Incumbent: No

Nominated by: Board of Directors

Alberto Saldamando

I am honored to have been nominated for

another term on the Board. While other

organizations focus on single issues of par-

ticularized interest, the ACLU-NC is one of

the few important organizations that

address the very bases of societal change and

conflict.

My tenure has allowed me to expand my

vision of what America could and should be,

and has allowed me common cause with

others of ostensibly dissimilar backgrounds.

I hope that I can lend to this strength of

vision and diversity.

I also hope that ACLU-NC will more

systematically offer expanded opportunities

for participation to others for whom the (c)

ACLU is not now an option. And within the

ACLU I hope for a greater recognition of

International Human Rights as basic to

American Civil Liberties concerns.

Incumbent: Yes

Nominated by: Board of Directors

Douglas R. Young

Over twenty years ago, my father (a col-

lege professor) received ACLU support in a

First Amendment/academic freedom dis-

pute. Having witnessed then how effective

and necessary ACLU involvement can be, I

have been honored recently to serve as a

cooperating attorney with and fundraiser for

the ACLU-NC.

The ACLU has always been vital, and is

particularly important now when civil liber-

ties are under increasing attack and even

established precedents are being subjected

to reconsideration by appellate courts. I am

inspired by the opportunity to serve during

this period. If elected, I would bring years of

experience as a trial and appellate lawyer, a

board member and fundraiser for other civil

rights organizations, and a long-standing

commitment to the preservation of civil

liberties. .

Incumbent: No

Nominated by: Board of Directors

High Court to Hear

Affirmative Action Case

n behalf of the national ACLU,

O ACLU-NC staff attorney Ed Chen

filed an amicus brief in the U.S.

Supreme Court in April in the case of City

of Richmond vy. J.A. Croson Company in

support of the city's set-aside programs for

mintority-owned businesses.

A ruling in favor of the City of Richmond

~ would mean that local governments can take

affirmative action to remedy discrimination

without proof of past discrimination against

minorities.

In response to the concern that minority

businesses had never been given a fair oppor-

tunity to compete for construction contracts,

the Richmond City Council adopted an

ordinance to provide employment oppor-

tunities for minority-owned _ businesses.

According to Chen, "Their concern was

amply supported by uncontroverted evi-

dence that the City had awarded, and was

continuing to award, an infinitesimal per-

centage of its construction contracts to

minority businesses."

The ordinance required that for a five-

year period, prime contractors who win City

contracts award 30% of their subcontract

dollars to minority enterprises.

The lawsuit originated when the J.S. Cro-

son Company, a white-owned contractor,

challenged the constitutionality of the city's

affirmative action program, claiming that

the ordinance violated the equal protection

clause of the U.S. Constitution. The com-

pany also claimed that the U.S. Supreme

Court decision in an earlier case, Wygant v.

Jackson Board of Education, in which the

high court struck down an affirmative

action program concerning layoffs ("super

- seniority") also invalidated the Richmond

program. ;

In its friend-of-the-court brief, the ACLU

argues that the city's remedial program is

"not only permissable, but indispensable, if

the nation is to fulfill the promise of equality

contained in the Fourteenth Amendment."

The ACLU is also arguing that such affir-

mative action programs should be subject to

"intermediate scrutiny" rather than "strict

scrutiny," as the- latter would bar local

governments from responding effectively to

racial disparities within their communities

and turn the equal protection clause "on its

head."

"A properly drawn affirmative action pro-

gram would not be inconsistent with, but

rather promote, the `pervading purpose' of

the Fourteenth Amendment, which was to

eliminate oppression of historically subju-

gated minorities and to provide them with

equality of economic opportunity,' Chen

stated.

In addressing the Wygant decision, the

ACLU argues that it does not apply in this

case and that it should not be applied outside

of the layoff context. "The affirmative action

plan in Wygant was struck down by the

court because it involved layoffs rather than

hiring or promotion," said Chen. "It was not

conceived as a remedy for past discrimina-

tion against minority teachers; and, it was

developed by the school board itself and not

by a legislative body with plenary power."

In no way should the court's previous

decision establish an absolute rule that state

and local governments cannot engage in

affirmative action to remedy discrimination

without proof that that agency engaged in

past discrimination against minorities, the

ACLU charges.

The issue is important because the

Court's decision is likely to affect similar

affirmative action plans including those

established by the State of California, Oak- -

land, and San Francisco. Last year the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down

a similar ordinance enacted by the City and

County of San Francisco. The ACLU-NC

filed an amicus brief in that case as well, and

a request for rehearing is pending.

Learn first-hand about the ACLU's

defense of liberties! As the Intake Coor-

dinator, you will be responsible for train-

ing Complaint Counselors, law interns

and volunteers to screen and respond to

civil liberties complaints from phone calls

and mail. The Coordinator position is

critical to the ACLU's legal program. It

This is a critical year for the ACLU-

a time when financial support is more

difficult to come by but civil liberties

needs are more pressing than ever. Help

the ACLU gather resources-join our

Development staff and learn about fund

- raising from experts!

Researchers: We have an immediate need

for responsible people with library

research skills. Hours are very flexible.

VOLUNTEERS NEEDED!

_ INTAKE COORDINATOR

RESEARCHERS AND

DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANTS

. INTERESTED IN VOLUNTEER-

requires a strong commitment to civil

liberties and to helping people, writing

and typing skills, and an ability to ana-

lyze problems. The Coordinator must be

responsible, well-organized, and patient.

Hours are flexible, at least 10-15 hours

per week, with a minimum commitment

of one year.

Development Assistants: We need

organized people with typing skills inter-

ested in working with word processing

and database computer programs. Hours

6-8 hours per week during regular office

hours.

ING? CALL JEAN HOM AT 415/621-

2493 DURING REGULAR OFFICE

HOURS.

aclu news

6 july/august 1988

ACLU Files Suit to Stop

Drug Tests at VA

( : hallenging a drug testing program

mandated by President Reagan's

1986 Executive Order for employees

of executive agencies of the federal govern-

ment, the ACLU-NC, the Employment Law

Center, and the law firm of Heller, Ehrman,

White and McAuliffe which is handling the

case pro-bono for the ACLU, filed a class

action lawsuit on June 9 in the United States

District Court in San Francisco on behalf of

employees of the Veterans Administration.

Claiming that the VA's mandatory drug

testing program violates their constitutional

rights, employees Jeffrey Hansen, Martin

Hudson, and Karen Russ of the VA Hospital

in Palo Alto and Stephen Baird and David

Martin of the VA Medical Center in San

Diego filed the suit on behalf of the class. A

similar suit on behalf of unionized

employees of the VA was also filed by the

American Federation of Government

Employees in the same district court on the

same day.

In November, 1987 the VA established a

"Drug-Free Workplace Plan" which called

for mass random drug testing of all

employees in "sensitive" positions, testing of

employees involved in accidents, and war-

rantless testing based upon "reasonable sus-

picion" of drug use.

Chemical McCarthyism

Chen described urine drug testing as

"today's chosen form of surveillance and

behavior control which is degrading and

offensive to human dignity. Mass urine test-

ing signals the advent of `chemical

McCarthyism.' "

The VA's program has also been criticized

for its techniques, which are, according to

John True, attorney with the Employment

Law Center, "of minimal value in helping

the VA attain its laudable goals of promoting

workplace efficiency safety."

Melanie Gold, an attorney with Heller,

Ehrman, White and McAuliffe, added, "The

tests do not measure whether an employee is

impaired using drugs on the job; it only

indicates that the subject was exposed to

drugs sometime within the past several days

or even weeks. Urinalysis drug testing, there-

fore, unlike blood-alcohol tests, does not

measure current impairment, but is a form

of chemical surveillance of off-the-job con-

duct. Off-duty, off-premises conduct which

does not directly affect performance is

simply not a legitimate area of employer

inquiry."

Moreover, the process is plagued with

inaccuracies. According to True, "Statistical

theory suggests that where a large popula-

tion is randomly tested, more than half the

`positive' results obtained could be

erroneous."

Political motives

"The idea of testing came from the Presi-

dent's Commission on Organized Crime

which recommended testing as a means of

limiting society's demand for drugs. There

was no evidence of a drug abuse problem

among VA employees specifically or federal

workers in general," Chen said.

"The testing program is totally counter-

productive," observed lead plaintiff Jeff

Hansen, a pharmacist at the VA Hospital in

Palo Alto. "First of all, there simply isn't a

problem with drugs at our facility, and no

one claims there is. Second, there are ways

to deal individually with any employees who

abuse substances without assuming that eve-

ryone is guilty."

Since federal drug testing programs have

been put into place, numerous challenges

have been brought by federal employees who

oppose the mandatory testing. Lawsuits

have been filed on behalf of federal prison

workers, customs and Treasury employees,

and postal workers. The ACLU is even

representing attorneys employed by the

Department of Justice who are opposed to

undergoing testing.

- Suzanne Samuel

Privacy Fight over Children's Records

Ae a long battle to protect the privacy

rights of children, the ACLU-NC lost

an appeal this May which would have kept

Department of Developmental Services

(DDS) clients' records confidential. The suit

was filed on behalf of two children with

developmental disabilities, Kyle White and

Shoshana McAvoy, and their parents.

Since 1979 DDS has required all regional

centers, such as the Redwood Coast

Regional Center where the plaintiffs

received treatment, to submit reports on

clients which are known as Client Develop-

ment Evaluation Reports (CDER's).

In 1981 a rule was established which

changed the status of submission of a

CDER ftom voluntary to mandatory for

receiving funding. The regulations regard-

ing CDER's underwent further change in

1984 when DDS altered their client identifi-

cation system, establishing a Client Master

File which contained both the client's name

and the code used for their CDER's; thus,

the confidentiality of the CDER's was lost.

The ACLU-NC filed a lawsuit in Sacra-

mento Superior Court in March, 1985 seek-

ing a court order declaring that CDER's

only be submitted if they contained the

signed consent of the client's parent or legal

guardian. Submitting the records without

such consent would represent a violation of

a client's right to privacy as guaranteed by

the California Constitution and the Lanter-

man Developmental Disabilities Services

Act, the ACLU-NC claimed. The case was

litigated by ACLU-NC cooperating attor-

neys Mark White and Anna Rossi of the

San Francisco law firm of Rogers, Joseph,

O'Donnell and Quinn and ACLU-NC staff

attorney Margaret Crosby.

Access to CDER's, the children's parents

asserted, would present a possibility for

future harm and discrimination as employ-

ers and others could have access to the

records.

In 1986 the trial court ruled that without

CDER's, children were not entitled to fund-

ing.

The appellate court ruled that although

some of the government's claimed need for

the information could be satisfied by alter-

native systems, two administrative objec-

tives required name-identified CDER's.

According to attorney Mark White,

"This case has taught me that courageous

people come in all shapes and sizes-I am

_ especially honored to have represented these

brave parents who, against all odds, decided

to pursue a difficult course to seek justice for

their children."

Disabled Voters

Win Access to Polls

n the eve of the California primary, the

ACLU-NC and the Disability Rights

Education and Defense Fund (DREDF)

filed a class action lawsuit charging that the

inaccessibility of polling places in California

is a violation of the constitutional rights of

disabled voters. The lawsuit was filed on

behalf of two disabled voters and several

disability rights organizations. In a prelimi-

nary injunction issued June 29 by San Fran-

cisco Superior Court Judge Lucy Kelly

McCabe, the state was ordered to increase

handicapped accessibility in the state's vot-

ing precincts in time for the November

election.

The order requires that each county

employ one person full-time to carry out the

order; that counties report on their plans to

~ fulfill the order to Secretary of State March

Fong Eu by August 10; and that Eu issue a

report to the plaintiffs' counsel by Sep-

tember | regarding the counties' plans. It is

now expected that most of the state's polling

places will be accessible to the disabled by

the November election.

The lawsuit was filed because an esti-

mated 7,400 voting places-more than

30%-in California would not be handicap-

accessible by the November 1988 general

election. The lawsuit, Independent Living

Resource Center of San Francisco v. Eu,

asked the court to order the state to make

"reasonable and good faith efforts to assure

that government officials pay attention to

their legal responsibilities and take reasona-

ble steps toward the elimination of inaccess-

ible voting places to the greatest extent

possible."

According to ACLU-NC staff attorney

Matthew Coles, who litigated the case with

DREDF attorney Sid Wolinsky and cooper-

ating attorneys Charlotte Addington,

Evelyn Deaton, and Maureen E. McClain

of Dretzin, Kauff, McClain and McGuire,

"Disabled people ought to be able to vote in

the same way that everybody else does.

"Challenging curbside and absentee vot-

ing is no more about convenience than chal-

lenging sezregation at lunch counters was

about the quality of the cuisine. This case,

like those cases, is about simple human

dignity."

Both individual named plaintiffs, Laura

Cooper and John Wrenn were likely to be

assigned to inaccessible polling places for the

November general election.

According to a 1988 Harris poll, disabled

Americans express greater interest in polit-

ics than other citizens but they register and

vote at a rate considerably lower than the

general public.

The most common barrier cited by dis-

abled people was difficulty in getting to the

polls.

According to Wolinsky, many of Califor-

nia's disabled voters are left to either vote

absentee or in public at the curbside. "The

evidence suggests that the result of this

second class status is that disabled people

are discouraged from voting.

"Tt is past time that disabled voters were

treated like everyone else and permitted to

vote the way everyone else does," he added.

For 2'4 years the state has been obliged

under federal law to make all polling places

used in federal elections accessible. "In this

case, the issue was not really if the state will

make polling places accessible, but when,"

said Coles.

Victory for OCC

Complainants

the review of alleged police abuse, the

First District Court of Appeal in San

Francisco ruled on June 16 that despite

objections by the San Francisco Police

Officers' Association (POA), complainants

and their representatives have the right to

participate fully in hearings of the Office of

Citizen Compalints (OCC) and are entitled

to access to evidence to prepare for the

hearings.

The ACLU-NC argued for full involve-

ment by complainants in an amicus brief by

ACLU-NC staff attorneys Edward Chen

and John Crew; ACLU-NC cooperating

attorney Karrin Klotz from Pillsbury, Mad-

ison and Sutro; and Amitai Schwartz, counsel

for the Bar Association of San Francisco.

Schwartz, a former ACLU-NC staff counsel,

presented the oral arguments, before the

court.

The OCC was established in 1982 when

San Francisco voters passed Proposition

"A," by a vote of 62% to 38%, calling for an

agency "to investigate all complaints of

police misconduct ... [and] recommend

disciplinary action to the chief of police on

those complaints that are sustained."

In the amicus brief, the ACLU-NC and

the Bar Association argued that citizen par-

ticipation in the OCC hearing process

"inspires confidence in the process and con-

fidence that the City of San Francisco is

taking seriously its responsibility . . . to con-

duct investigations in order to ferret out

I n a victory for citizen involvement in

incidents of police misconduct."

In its decision regarding the presence of

complainants and their counsel at OCC

hearings the court agreed, stating, "The

hearing is plainly an integral part of the

investigatory, fact-finding process itself. . .

what is more, such participation [by the

complainant and named officer] provides

assurance to the public that the OCC's inves-

tigation is neutral."

- The suit, San Francisco Police Officers

Association y. City and County of San

Francisco, represents a direct attack on the

hearing process, and an attack, explained

attorney Crew, "on the idea that victims of

police abuse should be allowed to face the

police in a fair and neutral hearing.

"The POA was saying that you can have a

`hearing, except that one side is not allowed

to participate. In our view, that is no hearing

at all," added Crew, Director of the

ACLU-NC Police Practices Project.

In establishing the OCC, the hearing pro-

cess was specifically included.

Crew noted that this decision also means

that the internal affairs systems can have

hearings if they so choose. "And," he added,

"they should, if they take their obligations

seriously."

The POA, which is known to stand

against civilian review, had been pursuing

this case for over three years.

Commented Crew, "This case is a reaffir-

mation of the legality, legitimacy and credi-

bility of the civilian review process."

aclu news

july/august 1988 7

Suit Filed to Save Medi-Cal Abortion Funds `Free Speech

or the eleventh time in as many years.

the ACLU-NC brought suit on

behalf of a coalition of civil rights

groups, women's organizations, health care

providers and taxpayers challenging the

state Legislature's refusal to approve full

funding for abortions performed under the

state Medi-Cal program.

The lawsuit, Committee to Defend

Reproductive Rights (CDRR) v. Kizer. was

filed on July 12 in the state Court of Appeal

by ACLU-NC staff attorney Margaret

Crosby and Ralph Abascal, General Coun-

sel of California Rural Legal Assistance.

If enforced, this year's Budget Act restric-

tions would deny public funding:to 90% of

the 80,000 Medi-Cal eligible California

women-one quarter of them teenagers-

who need abortions.

In every previous case, the court has ruled

that the cuts are unconstitutional. In May of

this year, the California Supreme Court

refused to hear the case, thus upholding the

Court of Appeal's February ruling that the

Medi-Cal abortion funding cuts were

unconstitutional and could not take effect.

Upon filing the lawsuit, Crosby severely

criticized the Legislature's cuts. "It has been

clear since 1981-when the California

Supreme Court decided our original suit-

that the Medi-Cal system must include pub-

lic funding for abortion for women and

adolescents in California," she said.

Sacrifice health care

"The Legislature has consciously violated

the state Constitution for eight years,"

Crosby added. "Their budget cuts show that

they are willing to sacrifice the health care

and lives of the 80,000 women each year

who depend on Medi-Cal funds for

abortion."

Collett Patt of the Committee to Defend

Reproductive Rights Coalition for the Med-

- ical Rights of Women (CDRR) added, "The

right to control reproduction-to choose if,

when, and with whom to bear and raise

children-is essential to our ability to con-

trol our bodies and our lives. Whether we

are rich or poor, without access to abortion

services the rights that women have to par-

ticipate equally in society are jeopardized.

"We will not let the politicians force

women to have unwanted children and we

will not let politicians force a woman, just

because she is poor and pregnant, into a

back alley in search of health care," Patt

added.

Close vote

This year, as in each year following the

first Medi-Cal abortion fund cuts in 1978,

pro-choice organizations throughout the

state made a major effort to lobby the Legis-

lature to preserve funding. "This year, the

Assembly actually defeated the restrictions

on a tie vote," explained ACLU-NC Legisla-

tive Advocate Marjorie Swartz, "and the

vote in the Senate was very close-they

excluded abortion funding by only one

vote."

Swartz stressed that the close vote was an -

indication of the impact of broad lobbying

efforts on this vital issue and noted that the

grassroots pressure will continue as long as

the Legislature continues to "flagrantly vio-

late women's reproductive rights and the

California Constitution."

Attorney Abascal noted that this year's

Budget Act restrictions, like last year's, vio-

late the "single subject" rule of the California

Constitution. "Last year, the Court of

Appeal agreed that the Budget Act cannot

be used as a vehicle to substantively amend

or change existing statute law.

"Existing law (the Medi-Cal Act) provides

public funding for a comprehensive range of

medical services, including abortion."

The 1988-89 Budget Act restrictions mir-.

ror provisions from the last five years. The

Legislature's restrictions include setting up a

$12,858,000 "special financing account" for

abortion services which is separate from the

general fund for Medi-Cal benefits (the

Health Care Deposit Fund). This fund is

much less than needed to fund all abortions

for Medi-Cal eligible women.

The restrictions eliminate Medi-Cal cov-

erage for all but a tiny fraction of abortions.

State financing is kept only for 1) preserving

the life of the pregnant woman; 2) terminat-

ing pregancies from rape or incest (which

have been reported to government authori-

ties); 3) abortions for unmarried girls under

18 whose parents are notified; and 4) abor-

tions involving a severely abnormal fetus.

The petitioners in the lawsuit are CDRR/

CMRW, Coalition of California Welfare

Rights Organizations, Comision Feminil de

Los Angeles, Dr. Alan Margolis, Dr. Philip

Darney, and taxpayers Dr. Sadja Green-

wood and Christine Motley.

The named defendants in the lawsuit are

the Director of Health Services Kenneth

Kizer, Controller Gray Davis and Acting

Treasurer Elizabeth Whitney.

News Update: On July 14, the Court of

Appeals issued a stay prohibiting the

Medi-Cal abortion funding cuts from going

into effect until a final decision is rendered.

This order maintains the funding and pre-

vents state officials from mailing notices to

Medi-Cal recipients about the cuts included

in the Budget Act.

Jackson Campaign Fights Ban at Mall

hallenging a Woodland shopping

center's denial of access to Jesse

Jackson campaign - workers,

ACLU-NC attorneys won a permanent

injunction from Sacramento Superior Cour

ton May 27. The injunction allowed Jackson

campaign workers to register voters, solicit

donations and distribute literature at the

Westgate Shopping Center.

In mid-April, members of the Jackson

campaign sought permission from the mall

management to set up a table for the pur-

poses of registering voters and distributing

written campaign material. The mall denied

the request saying that such activities were

of a partisan political nature, and were thus

not allowed. The manager of Raley's Super-

-store, the desired site of the table, stated that

the mall refuses to allow "anything political."

The Jackson campaign turned to the

ACLU and was represented by attorneys

Daniel Abramson, Nancy Bramberg and

Harry Roth of the Sacramento and Yolo

Chapters of the ACLU and ACLU-NC staff

attorney Alan Schlosser.

The ACLU challenged the mall's policy,

arguing that it represented an abridgment of

the constitutional rights to free speech and

petitioning; violation of the constitutional

guarantee of equal protection by discrimi-

nating against speech based upon its content

and by excluding speech due to its subject

matter; and violation of the public's right to

obtain, by their own choosing, information

protected by the Constitution.

Just a month before the primary, on May

6, the court issued a Temporary Restraining

Order (TRO) allowing the Jackson cam-

paign to station an information table in front

campaigners.

of Raley's, the mall's largest store. A per-

manent injunction was signed on May 27

upholding the right of partisan political

groups, including the Jackson campaign, to

distribute information at the center, as long

as they follow certain guidelines. -

The ruling was based on the 1979 Califor-

nia Supreme Court case Robins v. Prune-

yard Shopping Center which extended the

California Constitution's guarantees of the

rights to petition and to free speech to cover

the exercise of such activities at privately-

owned shopping centers. With that land-

mark ruling, the high court recognized that

shopping centers have become a "modern

Despite a string of ACLU victories, shopping mall owners still try to bar political

day equivalent of the traditional town

plaza," and thus, free speech activities there,

specifically the circulation of a petition or

distribution of leaflets, must be protected.

That ruling was upheld by the USS.

Supreme Court a year later.

Owners of the Westgate Shopping Center

argued that Pruneyard covered only

signature-gathering and not leafleting.

However, the court, agreeing with ACLU

arguments, ruled that the Jackson campaign

would be allowed to both gather signatures

and distribute literature as well as solicit

funds.

- Suzanne Samuel

`Victory at

S.F. State

triking a victory for academic free-

S=: San Francisco Superior Court

Judge Lucy K. McCabe ruled on

June 10 that San Francisco State Universi-

ty's restrictions on a lecture by a controver-

sial Israeli speaker were unconstitutional.

The court also ruled that the University's

policy of allowing administrators discretion

to override the judgment of its professors by

imposing such restrictions on guest lectures

is unconstitutional.

The ACLU-NC case, Simpson v. San

Francisco State University, originated in

1985 when university officials imposed

unprecedented restrictions on a lecture given

by Rabbi Meir Kahane, a member of the

Israeli Knesset, founder of the Jewish

Defense League and head of the Israeli

Kach Party.

International Relations professor Dwight

Simpson had invited Kahane to speak to

two of his classes; Simpson, in accordance

with his long-standing practice, and that of

other professors on campus, had also invited

interested faculty, students and staff who

were not enrolled in his classes to attend

Kahane's lecture. :

University administrators, however,

refused to allow persons who were not offi-

cially enrolled in the classes to attend the,

lecture.

Because of his concern for increased

security precautions, Professor Simpson

notified the University administration about

the planned Kahane lectures. Some students

and community groups apparently pro-

tested against Kahane's appearance.

After some internal discussion, the

administration informed Simpson that the

lecture would be limited to the forty persons

enrolled in the class, although the lecture site

could accommodate 100. Though other con-

troversial speakers, including a spokesman

for the Irish Republican Army, the Consul

General of South Africa, and the Consul

General of Israel, had lectured at the Univer-

sity, this was the first time in the history of

the University that such restrictions were

imposed. -

The new restrictions meant that other

students, International Relations Professor

Marshall Windmiller, and a representative

of the campus newspaper were barred from

attending.

According to ACLU-NC attorney Ed

Chen, who successfully litigated the case

with ACLU-NC cooperating attorneys Cha-

rles Breyer and Virginia Crisp of Coblentz,

Cahen, McCabe and Breyer, "This scheme by

the University to determine to intervene and

override the judgment of its professors as to

teaching methodology on an ad hoc basis

vests unbridled discretion in officials in

deciding who may exercise their First

Amendment rights and when.

Such a system which has no objective

rules governing the discretion of University

administrators is unconstitutional on its

face," Chen added.

"Moreover," according to attorney Crisp,

"this particular incident flies in the face of

academic freedom. According to previous

court rulings, the classroom is peculiarly the

`marketplace of ideas, and the vigilant pro-

tection of constitutional freedoms is

nowhere more vital than in the community

~ of American schools."

aclu news

S july/august 1988

Growing Economic

Inequality

and Its Impact on

~ Civil Liberties

CONFERENCE

Lone Mountain Conference Center

University of San Francisco

4800 Turk Street, San Francisco

Saturday, September 10

- 9:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m.

-Dinner Program 7:00 p.m.-8:30 p.m.

= Co-Sponsored by the Gay

Rights Chapter, ACLU-NC and

the San Francisco Chapter,

ACLU-NC

0S 7

ES ES ===],

ES = 7 ES SPEAKERS INCLUDE:

key) f= cent Roberta Achtenberg

RTA ry Rota Lesbian Rights Project . |

SSOCI Se e Angela Blackwell

Urban Strategies Institute

PANELS AND SPEAK- - 0x00B0 Mark Cloutier

ERS ON: Aide to Rep. Boxer on AIDS Task Force

cent Jed Emerson

Larkin Street Center

[_] The Poverty Line

[ | Out of the Mainstream

[_] The Economics of AIDS cent Ethel Long-Scott

Ea No Human Being is Illegal Women's Fcononiic Agenda Project

[_] The War on Drugs cent Donna Hitchens

Civil rights attorney and activist

DEBATE: cent Demetria Martinez

El "Should we legalize Journalist, poet, and Sanctuary defendant

drugs?" cent Alberto Saldamando

ACTION SESSIONS: -inmigaion Poet

[_] Legislation

(Additional speakers to be announced.)

(For information, contact Marcia Gallo at 415/621-2493 after August 3.)

1988 ACLU-NC ANNUAL

Chapter Meetings (c)

B-A-R-K (Berkeley area) CHAPTER

MEETING: (Usually fourth Thursday) Thurs-

day, July 28. Volunteers needed to staff hotline.

Contact Julie Houck, 415/848-4752.

EARL WARREN 0x00A7 (Qakland/ Alameda

County) CHAPTER MEETING: (Usually

third Wednesday) No meeting scheduled for

August. A's fans!! Join the ACLU at the Oak-

land Coliseum, it's a fundraiser for the ACLU /

Earl Warren Chapter. Send self-addressed,

stamped envelope marked "A's Game," to: P.O.

Box 1865, Oakland, CA 94604. (See ad below)

For more information, Contact Paul Bern-

stein, 415/534-ACLU or Lauren Leimbach,

415/655-7339 (eve).

FRESNO CHAPTER MEETING: For

August meeting details please contact Mindy

Rose, 209/486-7735 (eve).

GAY RIGHTS CHAPTER MEETING:

Contact Doug Warner, 415/621-3900.

MARIN CHAPTER MEETING: (Usually

third Monday) There will be no meeting in

August. Contact Eileen Siedman, 415/

383-0848.

MID-PENINSULA (Palo Alto area) CHAP-

TER MEETING: (Usually fourth Wednes-

day) Wednesday, July 27 and August 24, 8:00

p.m., All Saints Episcopal Church, 555 Wav-

erly, Room 15, Palo Alto. Contact Harry Anis-

gard, 415/856-9186.

MONTEREY CHAPTER MEETING: Usu-

ally fourth Tuesday ) Tuesday, July 26, 7:30

p-m., Monterey Library, Pacific and Jefferson

Streets, Monterey. Contact Richard Criley,

408/624-7562.

MT. DIABLO (Contra Costa County)

CHAPTER MEETING: (Usually fourth

Tuesday or Wednesday) Wednesday, July 27;

7:30 117 Los Altos Ave, Walnut Creek. Annual

Board Meeting on Sunday, August 28, 5:00:

2153 LaSalle Dr, Walnut Creek.Contact

Lowell Richards, 415 /939-ACLU.

NORTH PENINSULA (San Mateo area)

CHAPTER MEETING: (NOTE CHANGE:

Now third Monday) August 15, 7:30. Bank of

America, Third and El Camino, San Mateo.

Contact Bob Delzell, 415/343-7339.

SACRAMENTO VALLEY CHAPTER

MEETING: (Usually second Wednesday)

August 10; 7:30 p.m., County Administration

Building, 7th/I Streets, Sacramento. Contact

Eric Andrus, 916/441-2552.

SAN FRANCISCO CHAPTER MEET-

ING: (Usually fourth Tuesday) Tuesday, July

26 and August 22; 6:00 p.m. ACLU office,

1663 Mission Street, San Francisco. Contact

Marion Standish, 415/863-3520.

SANTA CLARA CHAPTER MEETING:

(First Tuesday of the month) Tuesday, August

2. Contact Christine Beraldo, 408/554-9478.

SANTA CRUZ CHAPTER MEETING:

ANNUAL MEETING/FORUM: There will

be no meeting in July. We will be meeting

Wednesday, August 10. For more information,

contact Kathleen Tranchina, 408 / 438-6094.

SONOMA CHAPTER MEETING: (Usually

third Thursday) Thursday, July 21 and August

18. Contact June Swan, 707/546-7711.

Congratulations on voting down Measure A.

Save Saturday, August 20 for the revival of the

Annual Picnic and September 18 for the

ACLU/NUC Free Zone Musical Festival.

Watch newsletter for details.

YOLO COUNTY CHAPTER MEETING:

(Usually third Wednesday) August meeting to

be decided, for information Contact Casey

McKeever, 916/442-0753.

Field Committee |

Meetings

RIGHT TO KNOW/RIGHT TO DISSENT

COMMITTEE: Tuesday, August 9, 6:00 p.m.,

ACLU-NC Office, 1663 Mission St., San Fran-

cisco. Contact Marcia Gallo, 415/621-2493.

A's Fans!

Come to the Earl Warren Chapter's

Oakland A's game/fundraiser! Friday,

September 16 (night game) vs. Kansas

City Royals. Tickets are $6.00 from "A's

Game," PO Box 1865, Oakland, CA

94604 or call 415/534-ACLU. Please

enclose a stamped, self-addressed

envelope.

Deadline for ticket orders is September 1.

rooms; and all rooms have been recently decorated.

as noted below:

e Single room

e Double room

$35.00

$46.00

All guest rooms must be reserved no later than August 26; reservations will be

accepted on a first-come, first-served basis.

If you would like to reserve a room for Friday, September 9, please include full payment

_Number/ages of children

1988 ACLU-NC Annual Conference REGISTRATION FORM Advance Registration Deadline: August 31

Conference: _ Dinner Program:

- 1) Registration Fee (per person) e Regular rate $20.00

0x00B0 Regular rate $20.00 cent Limited income $10.00

2 Limited income a I/We enclose payment for Registration $ Lunch $25

2) Lunch (per person): $600.27 Dinner Program $____ Optional Housing $______ Total$__

cent Vegetarian only ee

cent Other dietary restrictions ae NAME(S)

3) Optional Housing: : ADDRESS

There are a limited number of guest rooms available at the Lone Mountain Conference CITY ZIP

i : : t t

Center. Rooms are either single or double-occupancy; bathrooms are shared between two TELEPHONE (DAY] (EVE)

N.B. Lone Mountain Conference Center is wheelchair-accessible; however, the guest

rooms. are not. Childcare will be provided throughout the Conference and the Dinner

Program. Please note below whether you would like to arrange for childcare:

ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1981.batch ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1982.batch ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1984.batch ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1985.batch ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1986.batch ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1987.batch ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1988.batch ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log Scholarships Available: We have made every effort to keep the conference cost `easonable; however, we recognize that additional assistance may be necessary. We have

__ set aside some funds for scholarships; if you are interested in applying, please contact Marcia Gallo at 415/621-2493 after August 3.